Karnataka High Court
M.D. Nanjundaswamy vs Basic Education Society (R) And Others on 23 February, 1989
Equivalent citations: AIR1990KANT245, 1990(1)KARLJ173, AIR 1990 KARNATAKA 245
ORDER
1. Unfortunately this matter has been posted once again before me on account of what was recorded on 8-2-1989, When I proceeded for orders, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested for an adjournment. Therefore, it was adjourned by one week. Today, I have heard Mr. Baliga once again in the light of the noting made by my learned brother PKSJ., on Feb. 16, 1989.
2. The questions which are raised before this Court are :--
1. Whether the order under revision is bereft of reason?
2. If it is not bereft of reasons whether the reasons given may be said to be sustainable reasons legally?
3. The brief facts are these :--
Plaintiff filed the suit inter alia seeking a permanent injunction restraining defendant and also made an application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C. for temporary injunction. It is asserted that no temporary injunction was granted ex parte. Notices appear to have been directed and parties have entered appearance and respondents even filed their written statement. I.A. II was filed seeking to raise certain preliminary issue in regard to jurisdiction of the Court. That application was rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter I A. 4 was filed seeking a review of the order made on I.A. II. That also came to be rejected. It was then that the revision petitioner-first defendant filed I.A. 5 raising substantially the same questions which had been earlier raised in I.A. II and rejected. It was at that point of time, the question arose before the Court on the plea of the counsel whether I.A. 5 should be taken up first for disposal or I.A. I may be taken up first for disposal. The learned Judge has observed that the plaintiff contended that there was urgency to grant temporary injunction. That is obvious when the suit itself is for injunction. Therefore, temporary injunction as prayed to protect status or to prevent any other acts by the defendants, one may presume warrants some urgency when an application is made for grant of temporary injunction, in a suit which is for permanent injunction.
4. Now to contend that reasons have not been given when the entire history of the interlocutory applications filed and disposed of till I.A. 5 was filed is too patent to be ignored. There is a good juridical order and it is falsely contended before the High Court that the Court below has not given reasons for writing the order under revision. The first question therefore, must be answered against the petitioner. There are reasons and they are good reasons.
5. This Court is of the view that the trial Court must have a great deal of latitude in conducting the trial and decide the issues and this Court may not lightly interfere with that discretion, merely because one of the parties to the suit is displeased with the procedure adopted by the Court unless it is demonstrated that such procedure is likely to result in injustice.
6. In this case, no such proof is offered; of the likely injustice. The mere act of taking up for consideration the grant of temporary injunction first does not mean that temporary injunction is granted. It may be declined. It is for that Court which is seized of the matter to decide that question. This Court can hardly! do anything at this stage.
7. That an identical application to raise specific issues as preliminary issues in terms of O. 14, R. 2(2) was rejected is a fact which should not escape the notice of this Court. If I.A. 5 undisputedly is a repetition of I.A. II then there is gross abuse of the process of the Court. Having failed to obtain a favourable order on I.A. II, it is not open to the counsel or party to file I.A. 5 to impede and delay the course of justice much less to insist that such an application should be given priority. Therefore, abuse of the process of the Court within the meaning of that expression under Section 151 of the C.P.C. is ..... The Court below has every reason to keep it by and take up I.A. I which was filed earlier. It is just and proper to meet the ends of justice.
8. There is no merit in this revision petition. It is rejected.
9. Revision dismissed.